Slashdot Mirror
Google/Facebook: Do-Not-Track Threatens CA Economy
theodp writes "Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a 'do-not-track' bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an 'opt-out' privacy mechanism for consumers. Senate Bill 761 'would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce,' reads the sky-is-falling protest letter bearing the stamp-of-disapproval from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amex, Acxiom, Experian, Allstate, Time-Warner, MPAA, ESA and others. 'The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats.'"
Would you really want MPAA to get limitless power to track your every movement? What next, install tracking equipment and video cameras in your home so can MPAA can make sure you aren't making backups own your movies? After all, that would be really good for MPAA and barring such would "unnecessarily burden MPAA and movie studios business".
... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are.", and again, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
It's actually an interesting thing among slashthink. This is one thing Microsoft is doing right. You don't see Microsoft among the privacy invasive companies like MPAA, Time-Warner, Google, Facebook, ESA etc.. That's because they don't want to track your every movement. Microsoft sells you software. You buy it, they're happy, and you don't lose your privacy. Still most here think MS is evil and Google is some kind of white knight. Well, a few quotes.. Eric Schmidt: "We try very hard to look like we're out of control. But in fact the company is very measured. And that's part of our secret.". And Schmidt: "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go
That's not a good name to have associated with the rest. So much for Google not being evil. Maybe they should change their slogan to "Don't be unprofitable."
Lesson two: If it looks like there is a free lunch, think again. You're losing something worth more than cash up front.
The Californian economy is based on this stuff.
On the other hand, it seems strange that the new American economy is based entirely on
-hustling stuff via spam^H^H^H^Hemail marketing
-getting people to click on ads while penalizing sites that ask people to click on ads
-movies
-figuring out who you are/what you've bought so you can buy more of it.
-knowing who your friends are so you can be peer-pressured into buying more stuff.
It just seems that after you've figured out the basics of food production, housing, metals/commodities, transportation, there's nothing left except for group-brainstorming ethereal "value-adds" like the above.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Facebook already has an opt-out privacy mechanism called no using it.
I don't recall agreeing to the change from "Netizen" to "Consumer"...
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
WARNING!!! TROLL POST.
Do not click the link of the parent post or your stomach will suffer!
Google may have said that - but I'm sure they said it in an un-evil voice.
#DeleteChrome
Translation: "Our business model is founded on doing stuff to consumers that they don't want. Please let us continue doing it."
'Opt-out' is kind of pointless anyway because it will require a cookie to say you've opted out, which can be used to track you. The only law which would make sense is requiring people to opt-in to being tracked.
I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."
So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.
Does it not occur to some internet companies that I may actually be alright with um, oh I don't know, PAYING THEM for the services they offer, instead of being tracked and advertised to? Or are they too afraid of making money the traditional tried and true way of customers paying for their "apparently" superior offerings.
I mean if the only way a company can make money is by tracking and advertising to people then what business does a company like that have being on the stock market? Apparently they've just admitted in this "protest letter" that they really have no products or services that are worth being "sold".
Lets forget about free services, why do you need to store my info if I pay for your rich content service. I'm more then happy to enter my CC details every time I need to renew your service.
Sony? If my personal info is not stored anywhere how am I at risk to security threats?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I have said many bad things about Google, and now I add to that Google is officially a bloated and lazy firm, not capable of meaningful innovation. If it were it would not be pulling the 'lost jobs' argument. Such an argument is only made of irrelevant companies such as US auto makers and book publishers.
Google, and to a lesser extent, facbook has made huge sums of money through consumer ignorance. What this is going to require that they share a bit more of those proceeds with the end user. Yes it will effect profits, and conceivably it will effect proficts enough that they will get out of the business, or leave california. Perhaps they can move to a desperate state like mississippi, and perhaps enough employee will follow. The reality is that California knows it has something that exists in few other places, and can enforce a code of conduct on the companies there. Othwise everyone would move 400 miles east to Nevada.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
They had me nodding through that statement... The arguments being at least semi-reasonable. Right up until the last bit.
How does an opt-out system make things -less- secure?
Massive amount of obvious (but believable) self-interest, spoiled by trying to put a security spin on it that is total BS.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
So much for "Don't be evil"?
The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet,
Personally it freaks me out whenever I go on a random site and it shows me my own facebook profile picture along with a message such as "Be the first of your friends to recommend this article!!"
I'm still caving to peer pressure and keeping a FB profile, but I resent it always more and more. One thing is for sure - that's one company I'm not investing in any time soon.
I am not a vegetarian werewolf.
you forget the cookie name, such as _6079_Smith_W
People use the "cool" stuff because it is there and does not cost money. If there was a monetary charge for the same thing and no one used it, is that the fault of the people or the business offering. Do the people really lose in that situation? The business that does offer what someone wants and people are willing pay for it will be the winner for both groups.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
The problem isn't that stuff isn't free, it's that the costs are purposely hidden.
Dilbert RSS feed
"Everyone wants cool stuff. But nothing is free. It is just basic economics."
Fine then charge me for it. I don't want to give up my privacy.
The usual slimeballs are behind this:
If all those organizations went bust, the world would be a better place. Applying some pain to all of them is a good first step.
That requires establishing a linkage on the host between the public key and your identity. Zut alors! Your are now being tracked.
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Posting anonymously to protect, um, something. But one more slimeball to add to your list is The Bernard Hodes Group, who aggressively use multiple means of tracking people who are applying for jobs--by selling analytics to large employers--to gain value for themselves. What that value is, I do not know for sure, but having worked with them on behalf of shared customers, and having forced them to accept zero PII on any transactions under my control, and seeing their reaction to that I'm 100% sure that a significant portion of the profit model is the reuse and possible resale of that tracking data.
From what we can see out of this is that we are actually in the future pictured by the 80's TV series Max Headroom where corporations rule, "TV" (today the internet) is global and number of viewers is what counts. Now we are just waiting for Edison Carter and Max to appear.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I don't even know why it's lose your privacy or pay. TV and Radio profited for decades with complete anonymity for the user. They even made enough to produce content. Facebook, Google et al could monetizing advertising without infringing the privacy of the user. It's just a matter of making $500 million vs $5billion.
And this proposed legislation is a reaction to all the abuses that have happened in the past. It was inevitable.
What I would like to see however is a value is placed upon peoples information. If people are using it to make money off of you then perhaps there should be some compensation to those whose information is being used. Something a little more concrete then a 1 in 5 million chance of winning an iPad. Of course, the information should be scrubbed of personally identifiable data. There are websites that do this sort of thing already, but something a bit more formal. Im sure there would be drawbacks, but something has to be done about the wild west we currently live in.
Nice how the summary and article left Apple off the list for some reason (can never guess why . . . ). Next time editors (and submitters), try finding a more informative article. Took me all of two seconds to find that. Fucking hypocritical fanbois.
The Reg article you link to, while related, is not about the letter that was sent and therefore the point you're apparently trying to make fails miserably. If you check out the actual letter which is linked in the Ars article, you'll see that Apple actually did not sign onto it. It is, however, hilarious that you rant about fanbois and in the same breath admit that you immediately googled the controversy in an effort to try to prove Apple was involved. A little obsessed are we?